 | Boron has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | Dietary Supplements Mid‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Biological role
@Bon courage: Can you help!? Can you please review the Boron#Biological role and Boron#Pharmaceutical and biological applications section. I edited these sections the last few days, and I wanted to make sure that my edits are proper and improved Wikipedia content. Still, I found Boron#Pharmaceutical and biological applications section was not formatted very well, it should have been probably split by sections, but I didn't have an idea how do to that better. Maybe you have that idea? Thank you very much in advance! --12:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me! The strongest health claims are sourced to PMID:29546541, which is a quality source (on-point review article in a reputable journal). Bon courage (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)- Thank you very much for your help! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Chemically uncombined
@Porg656: The edit at https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Boron&diff=1180907397&oldid=1180881695 modified the meaning. It should have been "but chemically uncombined boron is not otherwise found" without commas, not "but, chemically uncombined, boron is not otherwise found". Would you please consider removing the commas as it was before!? --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Done Porg656 (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)